Wednesday, 4 September 2013

Liberal and Conservative Churches Part 1

Recently I came across two comments about liberalism within
the Christian church that struck me:

Liberal theology
cannot sustain a local congregation. It kills churches. In fact, it only
survives due to tenured academics. Rick Warren [1]

Congregationally speaking, Protestant liberalism is deader than Henry
VIII. While survey after survey shows a secularizing American population, this
hasn't helped the growth of liberal Protestant churches. Where are the
Unitarian mega-churches, the Episcopalian church-planting movements? Russell D. Moore [2]

As both comments have implications for church growth I
thought I would explore them with the help of some system dynamics.

Definitions

Note that the Rick Warren comment refers to liberal theology,
but the Russell Moore comment refers to liberal churches. The two concepts are related but not
identical. For now though I will define a liberal church as one with a liberal
theology, realising that this is not the whole story.

A liberal theology refers to a method of arriving at truth
which uses scripture as a general, and non-exclusive, guide rather than as a
set of propositions that must be believed. Thus rather than scripture
indicating a fixed canon of belief for all time, its truths may be modified
according to the age. Unlike orthodoxy the bias of the human authors of
scripture can be questioned, and even the text itself. Material from outside
the Bible, such as history and tradition, may have equal value in determining
truth, all weighed by human reason. Thus in a liberal church there is never a
fixed set of beliefs. Such a church will be lenient over what it considers the
faith, and would expect diversity within its midst.

Now I suspect that this definition does not do justice to
the use of the word “liberal” by many people, including Christians who call
themselves liberal. There are degrees of liberalism, and some may emphasise
liberalism in behaviour more than that of doctrine, and vice versa. But
hopefully this is sufficient to examine the church growth implications of the
Warren and Moore quotes, and expand them a bit.

By contrast a conservative church holds to a conservative
theology which is fixed by scripture alone for all time. Thus a conservative
church will (or should) be strict over what it considers the faith.

Where Do Liberal Churches Come From?

Both Warren and Moore indicate that liberal churches are
inherently weak; they hasten church decline (Warren), and they are unable to
start new churches (Moore). The fact remains that although the denominations
that are dominated by liberal beliefs are declining the fastest, and have been since
Dean Kelley’s [3] study from the 1970s, they do not decline that fast. So why
are there still liberal churches? Why do they survive, and in some cases
thrive?

I will put forward three reasons:

1. Church Leaders Liberalise, but Members Remain Conservative

One reason church leaders liberalise is that the seminary
system encourages liberal beliefs in church leaders. I think that is what Rick
Warren was getting at when he said, “it
only survives due to tenured academics”. A similar point was made by
sociologist Rodney Stark, who in a book review, suggested European churches
suffered from “institutionalised clerical atheism” [4], i.e. the institution of
the church encourages doubt in its ministers. My suggestion is that this is aided in part by the seminary/
theological college system of training, the institution that affects the belief
system of those it trains.

Thus in this scenario those who are called into full time
ministry are sent away to a college, where they learn theology at the hands of
academics with liberal beliefs. They are then sent to conservative congregations
and spend their ministry trying to change their people’s views with the “latest
scholarship” they picked up at seminary.

(i) First result of liberal leadership

One potential result of the liberal ministry is that those
who are conservative in the congregation leave and go elsewhere. The church in
which I was initially raised is an example of this. In common with many Welsh
Presbyterian churches it was rooted in the conservative evangelical theology of
the 18th century revivals. When the 1960s started a liberal minister
came, who taught people to doubt the orthodoxy they had received. In ten years
the church emptied from a few hundred to only a handful of members, as people left
and found other conservative churches. After another decade the church was
closed. This was repeated across the UK, so for a while the number of liberal churches
grew, but not all their people were liberal. As such the number of members
in liberal churches declined, firstly through transfer then through death, lack
of young people and inadequate conversion.

Figure 1 expresses these ideas. The more people in church
the more become leaders, the more liberalise and the more liberal teaching
injected back into church. This teaching reduces conversion, reduces the number
of children of church members who progress to membership, and increases, after
some delay, the number who leave the churches so affected. All the loops are
balancing loops sending the church numbers to zero.

Figure 1: Liberal
ministry causing church decline

(ii) Second
result of liberal leadership

A second result of a liberal ministry is that the most
academic of the liberal ministers have such a difficult time in churches that
they find a better role for themselves back in the academic environment. Thus
they return to seminary as educators and the cycle of the seminary liberalising
the next generation of ministers is complete. This is captured in the
reinforcing loop of figure 2. The reinforcing nature of the loop suggests that
the process of liberalising accelerates, and combined with figure 1 church
decline accelerates.

Figure 2: Liberal ministry reinforcing the liberalising of
seminaries

The conservative churches that survive are strong and have a
healthy membership. They send the larger numbers to seminary, but some of these
trainee ministers become liberal and start the decline process again in the
next batch of conservative churches to take on liberal ministers. Thus although
a given liberal congregation may die in a couple of generations, liberalism,
and liberal churches last much longer, fed by the seminary system that changes
the beliefs of its conservative intake.

I think this has been the canonical evangelical view of the
effects of liberalism on the church, and within which the Warren and Moore
quotes are set. However I think
there are more dynamics taking place than the above scenario suggests.

2. Church Members Liberalise, but Leaders Remain Conservative

In this scenario the minister is conservative but the
congregation is in varying degrees of belief from conservative to liberal. These
are not two distinct groups but a spectrum of people from one extreme to the
other. Three results spring out.

(i) First result of conservative leadership

The liberal members leave and join liberal churches. Now at
this point I am indebted to a medievalist blogger, Magistra, et Mater [5], who
has used my models to examine the interaction between liberal and conservative
churches [6]. Starting with my concept of enthusiasts as the church members who
are chiefly responsible for conversion, Magistra suggests that some of them
cease to be enthusiasts because they lose enthusiasm for the conservative faith
in which they were converted. Thus not only do they become inactive in
evangelistic work, they become more liberal as well. There comes a point where
such liberal people cannot fit into the church of their conversion, thus they
leave and join a liberal church [7]. They are now a specific source of recruitment
to the liberal church.

These ideas are captured in figure 3, where the conservative
church is in red and the liberal one in blue. The enthusiasts recruit from the unbelievers. After a time
they cease recruiting and become inactive believers, initially conservative but
later becoming liberal. They are still in the conservative church. Eventually
the liberal members of the conservative church leave and join a liberal church,
figure 3, part A [8].

Figure 3: Sources of
recruitment to liberal churches due to conservative churches

(ii) Second result of conservative leadership

I will go further and suggest that there are a number of
enthusiasts who get emotionally hurt by their church and also leave. I have
noticed a tendency for such hurt people to reject the beliefs of those who hurt
them, thus zealous conservative evangelicals abandon that version of the faith,
because that was the belief system of the people they fell out with. After some
time such hurt people also find a home in a more liberal church. Where beliefs
are less strong, there is more tolerance and people are less likely to get
hurt, figure 3, part B.

(iii) Third result of conservative leadership

Magistra describes another effect of the recruitment
activities of an enthusiastic conservative church, that of negative evangelism.
In this case the enthusiasts of the conservative church have a negative impact
on unbelievers, turning them from the gospel message. She extends my
model to include hardened unbelievers, who are no longer open to the message of
the conservative church, figure 3 part C. However if they come across a liberal
church, perhaps through the community work of that church, they might find less
negative connotations, less demands made, less questions asked, and this is a
happier home for their religious quest [6].

Thus I have suggested three sources of recruitment to the
liberal church. The result is that rather than dying out, liberal churches can
last many generations, albeit at the expense of conservative churches. I am not sure if this is a standard
narrative as liberal churches see it. Perhaps someone could comment on this.

One side effect of this transfer of liberal people from
conservative churches, is that it keeps conservative churches conservative.
Strictness in maintaining doctrinal and behavioural standards leads to a strong
church, according to Dean Kelley’s definition, which can attract and retain
others [3]. Thus the losses of the liberal people from the conservative church may
be offset by conversion, and retention of those with conservative views, and
net growth of the church could result.

3. Church Leaders and Members Liberalise Together

Here the issue is not just the interaction between liberal
and conservative churches, but the interaction of church with an outside world
not part of any church. For a church to grow it needs effective contact with
that world. No church can afford to be so irrelevant it cannot get its message
across. But the beliefs and practices of the world keep changing, thus there is
pressure on the church to keep changing to keep itself relevant. Thus the
church over time may change its beliefs in stages, to keep in step with
culture, usually 10 to 15 years behind as change comes slowly in the church. Thus
there is a slow evolution of practices and beliefs of minister and members
alike.

For example, evangelical Christians are thought of as the
more conservative end of Christianity, there is (in theory) a fixed creed and
fixed set of behaviour patterns. However some evangelicals prefer to say they
are “conservative evangelical” as they recognise that not all
evangelicals are as true to that system of belief as they are. However there
are also: "open evangelicals", “progressive
evangelicals”, “small ‘e’ evangelicals”, “accepting
evangelicals”, to name but a few! Each extra word flags that some aspect of
belief, behaviour or attitude has, or could be modified. These are clear signs
of a movement that is diversifying, which is another way of saying becoming
more liberal.

Research Questions

I have proposed three reasons why liberal churches survive,
maybe grow, or at least do not decline as fast as one might think: Seminaries
generate liberal ministers; liberal people are generated by the actions of
conservative churches; and conservative churches themselves liberalise to stay
relevant. My research questions
are:

1) What are the relative effects of the three scenarios?
That is, which of the three has the strongest effect on the survival of liberal
churches and which has the least, at any given time?

2) Are there other scenarios I have missed?

3) Do the two types of churches actually need each other to
survive, as suggested by Magistra [7]? In other words is there a symbiosis
between them that keeps the conservative true, and provides the liberals with
new recruits?

A Spanner in the Works

This blog was originally meant to be a single article, but
as ever the material and ideas keep expanding so it is now part one of two
blogs, part two to follow. I will finish it by throwing a spanner in the works
– I will query the definitions of conservative and liberal!

In the 1970s a former Methodist minister turned researcher, the
aforementioned Dean Kelley, published a book entitled “Why Conservative
Churches are Growing” [3]. Looking at membership data of a range of
denominations in the USA he demonstrated that whereas most of the conservative
denominations were growing, the liberal ones were in varying stages of decline.
As I write this blog it is still generally the case, although some conservative
churches, such as the Southern Baptists, are now slowly declining [9]. Again it
is against this viewpoint that the comments by Warren and Moore were made.

However Kelley was the first to admit the title of his book
was confusing [3, p.xvii]. His thesis was not about conservative churches, or
growth; it was about strict churches being strong. Strong churches may grow, but there again they may not,
depending on the context.

Thus a conservative church could be lenient (the opposite of
Kelley’s strong) because it does not insist that all its members follow its
beliefs or behaviour code, or because it does not direct much effort or zeal
into evangelism. Discipline and missionary zeal are two of Kelley’s indicators
of strictness. Such a church would be weak, which according to Kelley would
include tolerating individualism, a reserve in sharing the faith, and a general
lukewarmness for spiritual things. Such a church may be in decline despite its
conservative beliefs.

By contrast a liberal church may be strict. Yes it tolerates
a wide range of beliefs, but it does not tolerate those whose beliefs exclude
others. A standard liberal creed is “we are tolerant of everything, except
intolerance” [10]. As such there
are people who would not fit in such a liberal church, and would have to go
elsewhere. All tolerance has bounds! Such a liberal church may be very vocal in
proclaiming its stance, not in evangelism, but in campaigning and lobbying
non-Christian groups in society. As such there would be considerable zeal for
producing opinion change, which could easily result in recruitment. Such a
church would be stronger than the conservative one mentioned above, and might
well grow more.

The issues connected with growth are not just theological as
the words “conservative” and “liberal” would imply, but organisational. How
strictly does the church keep to its beliefs, ethos, and behavioural norms,
whatever they are? The subject
will be returned to in a later blog.

[3] Dean Kelley, Why Conservative Churches are Growing: A Study in the Sociology of
Religion. Mercer University Press, revised 1986, originally 1972.

[4] Rodney Stark, Review of Pentecostalism: The World their Parish.Review of
Religious Research, 44(2), P.203, 2002. In the last paragraph he
suggests that institutionalised clerical atheism is a barrier to church growth
in Europe, and thus a subject worthy of investigation.

[10] I was once
part of a church growth research group that visited a liberal church working in
an inner city area. They were the only church in the area. When one of the
group asked the minister if any evangelical church had ever tried working in
the area, he replied “No, and if they did he would run them out because they
would upset the prostitutes and the gays!” The degree of strictness, dare I say
intolerance, shocked even the more conservative members of our research group.

3 comments:

'So why are there still liberal churches? Why do they survive, and in some cases thrive?'

I think there's one major aspect you've missed: money. I'm thinking of the Church of England (CofE) here, although I believe this is also pertinent to the Church in Wales, and to the major European Lutheran denominations. (The CofE isn't 'liberal' in its entirety, of course, but it is theologically pluralistic, which is a sort of liberalism, I suppose).

As a denomination, the CofE (a state church, of course) is old enough and dominant enough to have amassed considerable resources, and it also sees its remit as a national one. As such, it's willing and able to subsidise small congregations in may parts of England. This assistance must be particularly beneficial to the more liberal congregations, since these are usually smaller than the evangelical ones. But apart from assisted church plants, Nonconformist, new or nondenominational churches, even those with growing or relatively large congregations, must be able to pay their bills (which may or may not include the minister's salary) or else they must close. Being evangelical is unlikely to help them if their finances are weak and their structure is institutional.

The above thoughts are particularly informed by the work of Robin Gill and Peter Brierley, and by Rodney Stark and co.'s thoughts on supply-side theories of religion, which suggest that state or quasi-state churches tend to sap the energies of smaller denominations while themselves experiencing little urgency to evangelise. The argument is that their continued existence relies above all on their status and their financial security, at least in the medium term.

You might also consider the related 'value added' aspect that liberal churches tend to offer. Because liberal/pluralistic denominations tend to be older, wealthier and have more status, they may attract people for whom these aspects are important. This is most obvious in modern Britain in some parents' willingness to attend certain (non-evangelical?) CofE churches to gain access to 'good' church schools. (There are prestigious state Roman Catholic schools of course, but evangelical state academies are rare, and do any of them demand church attendance from their pupils?) In the past, leakage to the more culturally acceptable CofE occurred as Nonconformists moved up the social scale. We also saw the phenomenon of dual church allegiance, with people attending one church to maintain status or affirm cultural norms, and then another more evangelical one for reasons of spiritual upliftment. This seems rare now in the UK.

Thank you for your comments. One of the purposes of modelling is to invite comments about all the mechanisms left out! I will attempt a belated answer to some of you points

MoneyIt is true the liberal and mixed denominations have more wealth per member than say independent evangelical ones, due to its inherited resources. Thus subsidies are more likely. However the historic denominations have also inherited some very expensive to maintain church buildings, which newer evangelical churches would not be lumbered with. The situation for mixed historic denominations in the UK is not as rosy as continental Europe as the latter still has the religious tax. The Cof E has not had that for a hundred years, thus the Stark et al thesis on the supply side decline of European Christianity is less applicable to the UK, than the continent. Now the UK is becoming closer to the USA model in the cities – nearly all have a plethora of independent competing congregations. My suspicion is most are competing for the same small and diminishing market and that it is insufficient to halt decline, which is the way things are now heading in the US.

Some of the denominations in Wales, which are declining fast, are quite wealthy, partly due to the sale of redundant building. However that finance is hard to turn into ministry as their age profile means there is an insufficient supply of ministers.

Liberal/mixed/pluralisticIt is hard to describe denominations like the CofE with liberal/conservative labels. I think this highlights the problems of these labels. I prefer the words soft/hard and to be clear which categories they apply to. Hard in some things, soft in others. Some liberals can be as hard and strict as evangelicals are reputed to be.

StatusThis is a nice concept to include. In England the CofE has an obvious status. But many others do in their niches. For example in Wales some of the welsh speaking non-conformists have status within the welsh speaking community. I think the issue churches with status face is the community/niche in which they have that status is shrinking, as the general population become less religious. This can be seen in the decline of religion between 2001 and 2011 censuses. As this is largely age-related their niche will be too small for status to help, unless the status is for a resource independent of religion, like education as you mention.

I think many of your comments apply because churches have generally relied on tapping natural markets and using their status within them. Effective in times when religion is established, but not ideal for our times. At some point churches need to work out how they can persuade a generally disinterested and hostile population to come to faith. A bit like the first two centuries of Christianity.